NARCOTICS REFORM GOES TO COMMONS

TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

LONDON, March 11—The British Government asked Par liament today for broad new powers to control the use of narcotics.

Government Would Be Given Broad New Authority

A proposed comprehensive drug bill would distinguish, for the first time in Britain, be tween possessing drugs and trafficking in them. Penalties would be reduced for the mere user but increased for the pusher.

The bill would give the Home Secretary flexible powers to add new substances to the list of proscribed drugs. This pro vision is designed to meet what is considered the tendency of users to try new drugs as sup plies of old ones drop.

The Home Secretary would also be given the authority to prohibit doctors from prescrib ing drugs if they have been prescribing “irresponsibly.” Overprescribing doctors would also be liable to the same crim inal penalties as traffickers.

Under British laws dating from the 1920's, doctors are allowed to prescribe heroin to registered addicts. But in recent years there have been prosecu tions of doctors for prescrib ing so freely that their patients become sources of illegal sup ply.

The decision to move now for a broad drug bill has both political and social significance.

James Callaghan, the Home Secretary, is generally regard ed as a symbol of toughness on law enforcement questions. The governing Labor party is relying on this fact to counter Conservative charges that it is soft on “law and order.”

Socially, the bill marks a recognition that Britain is be ginning to have a drug prob lem. It is tiny by American standards, only 2,782 addicts by official count in the whole country, but the use of heroin is increasing.

The police and the Home Office say that over prescrip tion by doctors is the main reason for the recent growth of heroin addiction. They do not think smuggling is a major factor.

Action Against Doctors

The proposed law would let the Home Secretary act against doctors after a hearing before a panel of three doctors and possible appeal to a tribunal. The British Medical Association has indicated that it will not object to this system.

In its new distinction be tween possession and traffick ing, the bill is in some ways similar to the omnibus drug legislation now before the United States Congress. But there are complexities.

There would he three sepa rate categories of drugs, ranked by what, the Home Office thinks is their potential for human damage.

In Class 1 would be opium, heroin, morphine and similar opiate narcotics, and, signifi cantly, such hallucinatory drugs as LSD. Also included would be injectable amphetamines, since authorities here feel injection of amphetamines is a dangerous phenomenon.

Class 2 covers marijuana and stimulant pills of the ampheta mine type, such as drinamyl (purple hearts) and benzedrine In this category, also, is cod deine, in the weak form of tab” let commonly used to reliev pain.

In the third class are what are termed “amphetamine‐like” drugs, so‐called pep pills, which are considered less dangerous under present knowledge.

Trafficking in drugs of the first two classes would be sub ject to a maximum jail term of 14 years and an unlimited fine At present the maximum is 10 years and a fine of £1,000 ($2,400).

Possession of heroin or the other Class 1 drugs could be punished by seven years in prison and an unlimited fine. The maximum sentences now are the same as for trafficking —10 years and a fine of £1,000.

For possession of marijuana or other Class 2 drugs, the present maximum prison term would be cut in half, to five years, but again with an unlim ited fine. For those in Class 3, possession could be punished by two years and an unlimited fine.

An official advisory commit tee headed by Lady Wootton had urged Mr. Callaghan. to re duce the penalties on mere'use of marijuana so that would no longer be a serious crime. The committee said it felt the fet; isting law was too hard, espe., cially on young people.

The Home Secretary, while he did cut the maximuregn tence for possession in half, did not accept what he considered the too “permissive” approach of the Wootton. Committee. Using marijuana is still to be serious crime.

However, the proposed stat ute would allow some new de fenses to prosecutions involv ing marijuana.

For example, owners of house or other place where the police find marijuana could’ be convicted only if the prosecu tion could prove what laWyers call mens rea, guilty knowledge that the premises were being used for an illegal purpose.

This clause was included4be cause of a recent case in which a woman tenant was convicted after marijuana had been found, in her apartment even though she had sublet it and iknew nothing about the matter. Ac tually, the higher courts have already reversed her conviction.

Most of the 8,000 drug con victions in Britain last year were for possession. Few drew anything like the maximum sen tences. In fact, judges, perhaps reflecting the Wootton view, have been taking a more lenient line toward young users of marijuana.

Home office experts fear, that fashions in drug‐taking may change rapidly. That is the rea son for the flexible clause al lowing the Home Secretary to add or subtract from the three classes of controlled drugs.